Al-Albani's and Al-Qaradhawi's Fatwas on Hamas Suicide Bombing

1. Muhammad Nasiruddin al‑Albani: A Clear Rejection of Suicide Attacks

Muhammad Nasiruddin al‑Albani (1914–1999), a prominent Salafi hadith scholar, was emphatically opposed to modern suicide bombings—even when framed as martyrdom operations or kamikaze-style assaults.

In a 2005 translation of his remarks, al‑Albani stated:

“Suicide attacks … are not legislated (in the Sharīʿah), and all of them are unlawful, and they may be from those types (of suicide) on account of which its perpetrator will remain in the Fire forever.”
“These suicide attacks are absolutely not Islamic.”
“What is the benefit in these matters? … These individual undertakings have no (desirable) end result that is for the benefit of the Islamic daʿwah (call), absolutely.”
abuiyaad.com

Furthermore, he emphasized that legitimate resistance occurs “in the path of his land, in the path of his nation,” and not by self‑destructive tactics—reaffirming that martyrdom in legitimate defensive combat differs fundamentally from suicide attacks.
abuiyaad.com

Al‑Albani also rejected the notion that isolated individuals should wage jihad, warning that such acts were akin to suicide rather than sanctioned struggle:

“Individual rebellion is akin to suicide, so it is unlawful.”
رصيف22

2. Yusuf al‑Qaradhawi: Conditional Support Turned Reservation

Yusuf al‑Qaradhawi, a leading Sunni jurist, initially took a markedly different position—granting conditional religious legitimacy to Hamas suicide operations under exceptional circumstances, but later reversed course.

Early Justification under Necessity

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Qaradhawi characterized Palestinian suicide bombings—termed “martyrdom operations”—as legitimate and heroic under Islamic law. He argued:

• Suicide attacks against occupiers were not suicide in the classical sense but self-sacrifice for one’s homeland.
  “They are not suicide operations… These are heroic martyrdom operations.”
  Wikipedia Discover The Networks MEMRI

• Israel, being a “completely military” society, had no civilians, thus Israeli targets fell under legitimate combatant classification—even pregnant women and unborn children.
  Wikipedia

• When civilians were harmed, it was unintended collateral damage—justified by necessity and military context.
  Religion Online Wikipedia

• He invoked a juristic principle—“necessity renders the forbidden permissible”—to argue suicide bombings were allowable if no other means of defense existed.
  The Times of Israel Wikipedia

• He explicitly condemned similar tactics outside Palestine, particularly in attacks against U.S. civilians.
  The New Arab Wikipedia

Retraction as Context Changed

By November 2016, Qaradhawi publicly retracted his earlier ruling. He stated that the conditions for necessity no longer applied:

“I permitted them because the Palestinians had a need to defend themselves… but now the necessity is over… [they] have acquired other capabilities.”
The Times of Israel Muslim Brotherhood Watch

He pointed out that new means—such as rockets—provided Palestinians with alternative defense options, rendering martyrdom operations unnecessary.
The Times of Israel Muslim Brotherhood Watch

3. Comparative Reflection

Scholar	Position on Suicide Bombings	Rationale & Context
Al‑Albani	Completely unlawful	Saw all suicide attacks as forbidden; promoted organized, defensible jihad only. abuiyaad.comرصيف  22
Al‑Qaradhawi	Initially conditional support, later retracted	Justified operations under “necessity” against occupation—but revoked as context shifted. Wikipedia The Times of Israel Muslim Brotherhood Watch

4. Broader Muslim Scholarly Consensus

It’s important to note that al‑Qaradhawi’s initial stance remained controversial among scholars. Many others—like Shaykh al‑Uthaymin and Abdul‑Aziz ibn Baz—unequivocally condemned suicide bombing:

“Suicide missions … are haram; … major sins … this is general in application.”
Muslim Brotherhood Watch Sunnah Online

Major institutions like the Muslim World League, organization councils, and scholars such as Wahbah al‑Zuhayli also oppose such acts, emphasizing protection of non‑combatants and classical Islamic warfare ethics.
ResearchGate Wikipedia+1

5. Final Thoughts

• Al‑Albani, grounded in Salafi hadith methodology, dismissed suicide bombings outright—viewing them as unjustifiable and spiritually perilous.

• Al‑Qaradhawi, initially leveraging a doctrine of necessity amid occupation, granted conditional religious validation—but eventually withdrew support as strategic circumstances evolved.

Their divergent perspectives reflect broader theological and ethical debates within contemporary Islamic scholarship—balancing principles of self-defense, preservation of life, and evolving geopolitical realities.

Al‑Albani’s Critique of Sa‘īd Ramaḍān Al‑Butī: A Clash of Jurisprudential Vision

In the landscape of modern Islamic thought, two towering figures—Muḥammad Nāṣiruddīn al‑Albānī and Muḥammad Sa‘īd Ramaḍān al‑Butī—embody contrasting approaches to jurisprudence, authority, and tradition. Al‑Albānī, a leading Salafi hadith scholar, relentlessly challenged classical madhhab structures, while al‑Butī, a prominent Syrian Shāfi‘ī scholar, defended the traditions of the madhhabs and warned against Salafi excesses.

1. Philosophical Foundations: Ijtihād vs. Madhhab Loyalty

Al‑Albānī's methodology was rooted in the belief that Muslims should derive legal rulings directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah, independently of established legal schools. He famously stated that his process involved comparing the opinions of all mujtahid imams and selecting the position that best aligned with scriptural sources Wikipedia Wikipedia.

In contrast, al‑Butī championed the importance of jurisprudential continuity. In his book Al‑Lamadhhabīyah—Akhtar Bid‘ahīn Tuḥaddidu ash‑Sharī‘ah al‑Islāmiyyah (“Not following a madhhab is the most dangerous innovation threatening Islamic law”), he argued that abandoning the traditional schools of jurisprudence represented a grave threat to the coherence and integrity of Islamic fiqh Wikipedia Wikipedia.

2. The Famous Debate: Scriptural Rigor vs. Rigidity

A rare documented debate between the two figures highlights the tension:

Al‑Butī opened by asking how al‑Albānī approached legal rulings:

“Do you derive them directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah or through the ijtihad of the mujtahid imams?”

Al‑Albānī replied that he compared all imams’ opinions but chose what was closest to scripture Tuan Salim Talk Arrahim.

Al‑Butī then questioned: if someone invests money and buys goods, when does zakat become due—after six months or one year? Al‑Albānī deflected, saying he needed time to study Tuan Salim Talk Pecihitam.

The conversation concluded with a sharper focus on taqlīd (imitation) versus ijtihād (independent reasoning). Al‑Albānī asserted that a muqallid who never changes madhhabs was committing an impermissible act, because doing so imposed a duty not required by Allah Tuan Salim Talk Pecihitam. Al‑Butī replied that such a statement contradicted established Islamic tradition, where following one madhhab was perfectly acceptable—and that pursuing constant switching would be absurd Tuan Salim Talk Arrahim. In fact, al‑Butī argued that labeling consistent adherence as heretical was inconsistent with both logic and history.

3. The Intellectual Stakes Behind the Dispute

This tension isn’t merely academic—it reflects deep questions about who has religious authority, and how the community should approach centuries of jurisprudential consensus.

• Al‑Albānī's critiques empowered believers to rely more on hadith verification and direct evidence—but at the expense, critics argued, of undermining centuries of structured legal interpretation Wikipedia Reddit.

• Al‑Butī feared that rejecting madhhabs invited doctrinal fragmentation. He emphasized that Islamic unity depended on shared legal frameworks, not atomized textual interpretation Wikipedia Wikipedia.

4. Broader Scholarly Backlash and Intellectual Alliance

Al‑Butī was not alone in his critique. Prominent traditional scholars joined the rejection of al‑Albānī:

• Ḥabīb ‘Abd al‑Raḥmān al‑Ā‘zamī penned Al‑Albānī Shudhudhūh wa Akhaṭā’uh (“Al‑Albānī’s Aberrations and Mistakes”) in four volumes Sunnisme.com Wikipedia.

• Abd Allāh ibn al‑Ṣiddīq al‑Ghumārī authored numerous refutations targeting al‑Albānī’s positions on tawassul and innovation az-zaha.com Wikipedia.

• Al‑Butī himself issued his two landmark works opposing madhhab abandonment and Salafist ideological restructuring Wikipedia Wikipedia.

5. Why It Matters Today

The dispute between al‑Albānī and al‑Butī echoes in contemporary Muslim discourse:

• Epistemology vs. Tradition: It frames the ongoing debate over whether Muslims should confront tradition with direct textual analysis or anchor in lineage and communal coherence.

• Unity vs. Fragmentation: Al‑Butī’s warnings about fragmentation resonate strongly in communities grappling with rising sectarianism and sect-specific law.

• Authority and Accountability: Who can claim authority and how scholars validate their positions—through ijāzah, formal training, or textual mastery—remains an essential question. Al‑Albānī lacked traditional ijāzah, which fueled criticism from his peers al-adaab.org.

---

In Summary

Al‑Albānī’s critique of al‑Butī and traditional madhhab scholars centered on his belief that Islamic law must directly reflect scripture and not be confined by scholastic inheritance. His methodology prioritized textual evidence—even at the price of undermining established consensus.

Al‑Butī, a bastion of Shāfi‘ī jurisprudence, responded by defending the necessity of madhhabs as the safeguard of legal coherence and communal unity. He saw al‑Albānī’s approach as an unwarranted and dangerous innovation that risked splintering Islamic law.

Their exchange reveals more than theological disagreement—it encapsulates a pivotal crossroads in modern Islamic thought: Should religious understanding evolve through unfettered textual engagement, or remain rooted in the structures handed down by revered juristic traditions?

This remains a relevant question, shaping how Muslims engage with faith, authority, and identity in a rapidly changing world.

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi: An Authority in the Field of Comparative Religion

Among the towering intellectual figures of Islamic Spain, few stand out like Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (994–1064 CE). A prolific scholar, theologian, philosopher, jurist, poet, and historian, Ibn Hazm is widely recognized as one of the earliest and most rigorous scholars in the field of comparative religion. Living during the cultural and political turbulence of Al-Andalus, he left behind a body of work that was both deeply rooted in Islamic tradition and astonishingly open to studying and critiquing other religious systems. His legacy continues to influence religious studies, interfaith discourse, and critical textual scholarship to this day.

A Life Shaped by Andalusia

Ibn Hazm was born in Córdoba, then one of the intellectual capitals of the Muslim world. This was a time when Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) was at its cultural zenith—a society known for its remarkable coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. His full name was Abu Muhammad Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘id ibn Hazm, and he came from a wealthy and noble family, with his father serving as a high official in the Umayyad court.

However, Ibn Hazm's life was marked by significant political upheaval. The collapse of the Caliphate of Córdoba in the early 11th century brought instability, civil war, and shifting allegiances. These events deeply affected his worldview and often made him a controversial and outspoken figure. He was imprisoned multiple times and spent much of his later life in scholarly seclusion.

Despite political turmoil, Ibn Hazm became one of the most original thinkers of his age. He mastered various disciplines, but he is most remembered today for his work in theology, jurisprudence, logic, ethics, and particularly comparative religion.

A Unique Approach to Religion

Ibn Hazm's most significant contribution to the field of comparative religion is his monumental work:

"Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nihal"

(The Book of Distinction Regarding Religions, Heresies, and Sects)

In this encyclopedic text, Ibn Hazm offers a systematic, critical, and scholarly analysis of the major religious traditions of his time, including Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and various Islamic sects. It stands out as one of the earliest Muslim attempts at comparative religious study using a rational and critical framework.

Unlike many polemicists of his era, Ibn Hazm approached other religions not merely to refute them, but to understand their foundations, internal logic, and texts. He examined sacred scriptures, theological claims, and historical developments with a combination of intellectual rigor and unapologetic Islamic orthodoxy.

Methodology: Rationalism and Textual Critique

Ibn Hazm's methodology was bold for his time. His work displays a rationalist approach, often grounded in logic (mantiq) and close textual analysis. He believed that reason and revelation were not in conflict and that understanding religious truth required both scripture and critical reasoning.

When studying other religions, Ibn Hazm:

1. Quoted primary texts extensively, especially from the Bible, which he read in Arabic translation.

2. Compared doctrines with one another, highlighting internal contradictions or inconsistencies.

3. Analyzed historical transmission, questioning the authenticity and reliability of texts based on manuscript variation and historical context.

4. Refuted sectarian innovations within Islam with the same critical eye he used for other religions.

For example, in his analysis of Christianity, he argued that the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus were later theological developments, not found in the teachings of early prophets or even the words of Jesus himself. He scrutinized the Gospels, pointing out contradictions and textual interpolations, arguing they could not all be divinely inspired if they disagreed.

In his treatment of Judaism, Ibn Hazm studied the Torah and questioned the chain of transmission from Moses to the later scribes. He accused some of its contents of having been altered or corrupted (a concept known in Islamic theology as tahrif), particularly where they conflicted with Islamic teachings.

Despite his critiques, Ibn Hazm acknowledged the moral and ethical teachings found in other religions, and he never descended into blind bigotry. His scholarship was harsh, but grounded in intellectual analysis rather than emotional rhetoric.

Islamic Orthodoxy and Internal Critique

Ibn Hazm was a committed Zahiri—a literalist school of Islamic jurisprudence that emphasized the literal (zahir) meaning of the Qur’an and Hadith, rejecting analogical reasoning (qiyas) and speculative theology (kalam). This position placed him at odds with dominant Sunni schools like the Malikis and Ash‘aris, particularly in Al-Andalus.

But his critical lens was also turned inward. In Al-Fasl, he critiqued not only non-Muslim religions, but also Islamic sects he believed had deviated from authentic teachings, including Shi‘a, Mu‘tazilites, and others. He believed truth must be pursued even if it challenged popular opinion, and this earned him both respect and enmity.

Contributions to the Discipline of Comparative Religion

Ibn Hazm’s contributions to comparative religion were groundbreaking in several ways:

1. Textual Engagement

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Ibn Hazm engaged with actual scriptures of other religions rather than relying on hearsay or secondary sources. His use of biblical texts showed a deep commitment to understanding opponents on their own terms.

2. Systematic Structure

He approached each religion or sect systematically, outlining their beliefs, sources of authority, internal divisions, and logical flaws. This was rare in his time and anticipates modern academic methods.

3. Objective Framework

While certainly polemical, Ibn Hazm aimed for rational consistency. He challenged ideas using logic, ethics, and historical method, making him a forerunner of modern religious critique and comparative theology.

4. Preserving Knowledge

His writings preserved a great deal of information about sects, beliefs, and interpretations that might have otherwise been lost to history. For scholars today, his work is a precious source for understanding religious thought in the medieval Islamic world.

Legacy and Influence

Although controversial in his own lifetime, Ibn Hazm’s influence has grown over the centuries. His works were foundational for later scholars in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. He inspired theologians like Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, who admired his defense of orthodoxy and rational argumentation.

In the modern era, his works have received renewed attention from historians of religion, Islamic scholars, and comparative theologians. His method of engaging other faiths through their texts and logic has become a model for serious academic study of religion.

In today’s world of pluralism and interfaith dialogue, Ibn Hazm's rigorous but informed approach offers valuable lessons: understanding another religion deeply is a prerequisite to critique, and knowledge—not ignorance—is the proper basis for disagreement.

Conclusion

Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi was far more than a jurist or theologian. He was a pioneer of comparative religion, setting a standard for critical, text-based analysis of religious beliefs in a time when polemics often relied on ignorance or distortion. His work, Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal, remains a landmark in religious studies, combining deep Islamic scholarship with intellectual honesty and analytical rigor.

Living in a multicultural society, Ibn Hazm demonstrated that one could engage other faiths seriously without compromising one’s own convictions. His life and work are a testament to the power of reasoned faith, scholarly integrity, and the enduring value of cross-religious understanding.

Al-Albani on the Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah: A Critical Salafi Engagement

In the world of Islamic scholarship, few figures are as influential and controversial as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328 CE) and Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999 CE). Both are widely recognized within Salafi circles as revivers of the Islamic tradition, yet their relationship across centuries is not one of blind endorsement. While al-Albani admired Ibn Taymiyyah and considered him among the greatest scholars of Islam, he was not uncritical. In fact, al-Albani openly acknowledged that Ibn Taymiyyah made certain errors, and that these should be recognized, not ignored.

This article explores al-Albani’s position on the mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah, the intellectual honesty he employed in his critiques, and what this reveals about methodological rigor in Salafi thought.

---

Ibn Taymiyyah: A Towering Intellectual Force

Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah was a 13th–14th century Hanbali scholar who lived during a time of political instability and spiritual deviation, as he saw it. Known for his deep knowledge of the Qur’an, Hadith, theology, and jurisprudence, Ibn Taymiyyah challenged many dominant theological trends of his day—particularly those of the Ash‘arites, Sufis, and philosophers.

He called for a return to the foundational texts of Islam (Qur’an and Sunnah), and emphasized tawhid (monotheism) in its purest form, rejecting what he viewed as innovations (bid‘ah) and anthropomorphic misinterpretations of divine attributes.

---

Al-Albani: The Hadith Scholar and Reformist

Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani was a 20th-century Syrian-Albanian scholar best known for his rigorous work in Hadith authentication and his role in shaping modern Salafi methodology. He was a vocal advocate for returning to the authentic Sunnah and clearing Islamic practice from cultural accretions and weak narrations.

Al-Albani saw himself as part of a revivalist project that included earlier figures such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim, and Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Yet, he also saw the necessity of critically analyzing their positions when evidence dictated it.

---

Al-Albani’s Praise of Ibn Taymiyyah

Al-Albani held Ibn Taymiyyah in high regard and frequently cited him in his own writings and lectures. In fact, he credited Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim with reviving the Salafi creed at a time when it was threatened by theological distortion.

Al-Albani once remarked:

“If not for Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, the true Salafi creed may have been lost to time.”

He viewed Ibn Taymiyyah as a mujtahid (independent jurist) whose contributions were essential in understanding the correct Islamic belief and methodology. Yet, this admiration never blinded him to human fallibility.

---

Recognizing the Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah

Al-Albani was clear that no scholar—no matter how great—is immune to error. He repeatedly emphasized that the only source of infallibility in Islam is the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and that every other human is subject to mistakes. This principle was at the heart of his methodology in dealing with the legacy of past scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah.

Here are some key areas where al-Albani disagreed with or corrected Ibn Taymiyyah:

---

1. The Issue of Divorce Pronounced Three Times in One Sitting

One of the well-known positions of Ibn Taymiyyah was that pronouncing divorce (talaq) three times in one sitting counts as one divorce, not three. This went against the majority opinion of the four Sunni schools of thought.

Al-Albani agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah on this ruling, based on Hadith evidence, but he also criticized how Ibn Taymiyyah approached taqlid (blind following) in other issues. He argued that Ibn Taymiyyah, while a major mujtahid, sometimes fell back on Hanbali usul (legal theory) in ways that were inconsistent with his otherwise evidence-based methodology.

---

2. Issue of the Earth Being Stationary

Ibn Taymiyyah was reported to have believed in a geocentric universe and the immobility of the Earth. While this view was understandable in his time, al-Albani did not consider it binding and stated that it should not be held as a theological principle. He emphasized that scientific discoveries, when not in conflict with clear revelation, are acceptable, and that Islam is not anti-science.

Al-Albani considered those who took Ibn Taymiyyah's cosmological views as aqeedah to be misapplying his legacy.

---

3. Position on Visiting the Grave of the Prophet ﷺ

Ibn Taymiyyah held the controversial view that traveling specifically to visit the grave of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not legislated and could fall under bid‘ah (innovation). While many scholars rejected this view, al-Albani cautiously defended it from a juridical perspective, but clarified that it should not be misunderstood or used as a basis to disrespect the Prophet ﷺ.

However, in some writings, al-Albani admitted that Ibn Taymiyyah’s expression on the issue may have been too forceful and misunderstood by the general public.

---

4. Some Statements on Hellfire Being Eternal

Ibn Taymiyyah is reported (though with debate among scholars) to have entertained the possibility that Hellfire may not be eternal for all people, and that it could eventually cease, based on certain interpretations of Qur’anic verses. His student, Ibn al-Qayyim, expanded on this view in Hadi al-Arwah and other works.

Al-Albani disagreed with this view and was very clear that the texts proving the eternality of Hell for disbelievers are explicit and decisive (qat‘i). He considered this view a rare and serious error from Ibn Taymiyyah, though he refrained from declaring it deviant due to the scholarly weight behind it.

---

Methodology Over Personality

What stands out in al-Albani’s treatment of Ibn Taymiyyah is his commitment to methodology over personality. Al-Albani believed that the truth is not known through men, but men are known through the truth—a principle he repeated often.

He stated:

“We do not blindly follow Ibn Taymiyyah, nor do we elevate him above the station of the Prophet ﷺ. We respect him, we learn from him, but when he errs, we say: he is excused or mistaken.”

This attitude reflects the broader Salafi principle of avoiding taqlid and emphasizing dalil (evidence). It also distinguishes al-Albani from sectarian partisanship, showing his willingness to acknowledge flaws even in figures he deeply admired.

---

The Value of Intellectual Honesty

Al-Albani’s approach to Ibn Taymiyyah’s mistakes is an important lesson in intellectual humility and integrity. He upheld a balance between respect for the scholars of the past and adherence to evidence. Rather than sanitizing history or deifying scholars, he called for honest engagement.

In a time when many ideological movements weaponize the names of classical scholars to support rigid narratives, al-Albani’s example reminds us that even giants like Ibn Taymiyyah were fallible, and their legacies are best honored by treating their words with critical thought, not blind devotion.

---

Conclusion

While Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani was one of the strongest defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah in the modern era, he was also among the most honest in acknowledging his mistakes. From matters of theology to legal rulings, al-Albani was willing to diverge from Ibn Taymiyyah where the evidence compelled him. This illustrates a key Salafi principle: that the Qur’an and Sunnah, not personalities, are the ultimate sources of guidance.

Through his respectful but critical engagement with Ibn Taymiyyah’s legacy, al-Albani offers a model for navigating the balance between tradition and textual evidence—one that remains relevant for students and scholars of Islam today.